So proud!
-
You're catching on, so again how is this substantially different then screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority? It's not is it? It's just bigotry.
Just to be sure I understand your question, you're asking how a woman knowing they're being mansplained to is different than someone screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority?
That's your real question?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is she explaining a basic thing herself?
-
I mean they aren't wrong, she's patronizing them with condescension they can't perceive because of their clear deficits.
That's a great observation!
-
Just to be sure I understand your question, you're asking how a woman knowing they're being mansplained to is different than someone screeching dei when inconvenienced by a minority?
That's your real question?
How do they "know" anymore then the man "knows" you aren't aware of whatever it is they're explaining?
They don't, they assume, it's just a bigoted assumption.
-
How do they "know" anymore then the man "knows" you aren't aware of whatever it is they're explaining?
They don't, they assume, it's just a bigoted assumption.
You tell me! You were the one who asserted that the only way a woman can believe a man is being misogynistically condescending and not herself be a bigot is for her to "know" that he is.
I granted you that, but sure, if you want to dissect your own claims, let's do it.
Tell me, how can a women know that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her?
-
"Karen" is a character, a specific trope. It happens to be a woman, but there is no inherent generalization that all women are Karens. It's gender-specific so I would use something gender-neutral instead, but it is not generalizing behavior across a group of people. The biggest issue with it is that it's unfair to people named Karen. Also maybe it's just me but I haven't seen or heard anyone use this in a couple years now.
I haven't heard anyone use the words "Phillistine" or "Luddite" as insults in probably more than a decade. If anything, I've seen the Luddites get a bit of a resurgence in popularity as an important early labor movement against capitalists. A lot of their concerns turned out to be true, and we are seeing parallels today with the rise of AI.
"Barbarian" means someone who is non-Greek, and later the Romans used it to mean someone who is non-Roman. This is a similar example to "retarded" where it is context-dependent. The word "mansplaining" does not stem from an inoffensive use like this, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Eat the Rich and All Cops Are Bastards are fucking based, because being wealthy and being a class traitor are choices these individuals are making, not identities. I would call serial murderers monsters, and racists pieces of shit.
I'd say "nice try" but really this attempt kinda feels like you're just throwing shit at the wall in the holes that something sticks. It's almost impressive how hard you are fighting to feel good about using sexist microagressions.
It's just pointing out that your position isn't consistent and seems to be related to how close the subject is to your own experience, while providing examples of the phenomenon of turning a derogatory generalization into a broadly understood concept that isn't necessarily attached to its root. (Barbarian is a fun one since the word was making fun of the way foreigners talked. I don't know of a direct contemporary comparison because people would rightfully point out that "chingchonger" is wildly offensive.) "Mansplaining" is a behavior specifically called out as a self-assured-man-assumes-ignorance-in-woman-and-condescendingly-explains-a-thing. It's not just dudes talking, it's not all men, and it doesn't hurt men that the behavior is identified. Mansplaining is a particular tone and context, it's hyper-specific language critical of one facet of patriarchal dominance and the assumed value of masculinity.
-
You tell me! You were the one who asserted that the only way a woman can believe a man is being misogynistically condescending and not herself be a bigot is for her to "know" that he is.
I granted you that, but sure, if you want to dissect your own claims, let's do it.
Tell me, how can a women know that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her?
You're being obtuse. I can't tell you how someone can know something that's impossible to know, what I can say is it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex.
What claim? Unless you're saying it's not bigoted to make assumptions based solely on perception and sex then I think we actually agree you just haven't made the jump to say mansplaining is specifically and exclusively a sexist preconception.
They can't, they can say a person is condescending to them, to assume it's based on either parties sex is sexist. You've met a condescending asshole and decided it's because of their sex, that's sexist.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's super easy not to mansplain. When you bring up a subject, just ask if they know about it, then segue into a conversation where you can both participate.
-
You're being obtuse. I can't tell you how someone can know something that's impossible to know, what I can say is it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex.
What claim? Unless you're saying it's not bigoted to make assumptions based solely on perception and sex then I think we actually agree you just haven't made the jump to say mansplaining is specifically and exclusively a sexist preconception.
They can't, they can say a person is condescending to them, to assume it's based on either parties sex is sexist. You've met a condescending asshole and decided it's because of their sex, that's sexist.
What you're reading as obtuse is me taking what you're saying at face-value.
I can’t tell you how someone can know something that’s impossible to know
So then why did you need to lead us around this loop? We already established your view: Any woman who believes that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her is a bigot herself. Wild opinion to hold publicly, but you do you.
What claim?
Me:
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
You:
To know them.
That claim.
they can say a person is condescending to them
How? Mind-reading?
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
Make it make sense. Or deflect by calling me obtuse. Up to you.
-
Macrophage is just another name for the "common" white blood cell. They are the cells that eat up bacteria and viruses, and are part of the general immune system. The general immune system can deal with the everyday stuff - the pathogens you are exposed to every day, for example low levels of bacteria, but they also are involved in cleaning up the remnants of dead cells. they engulf their targets and break them down (for example using H2O2). If they can't keep up, they summon additional help, and part of that is that white blood cells travel to the lymph nodes and there present fragments of the intruder on their surface. (nearly all cell types present fragments of what they break down on their surface, but normally those are only their own stuff, which is ignored by the immune system)
The immune cells then start producing antibodies - at random, until one of the antibodies sticks to the fragment presented. The cell that produced this successful antibody then continues to make more of them - the antibodies themselves are like "little flags" that mark targets. Like i said before, nearly all cells present parts of what they have inside of them to the outside - the flood of antibodies is now able to mark all infected cells in case of a virus infection, or mark bacteria. After the infection subsides, the cells that produced antibodies becomes dormant - it is now a memory cell, which can be rapidly reactivated if the same pathogen shows up again, you are now immune.
Measles don't get broken down in macrophages - their capsule is adapted to that process. instead of getting broken down, the virus infects the cell, which still wants to show that it caught something. in the lymph nodes the virus breaks the macrophage open, infecting the immune cells that are amassed there, and this includes the memory cells. After a while the immune system becomes able to kill off the measles, but by that time the damage is done and your immune systems memory is wiped out.
Mumps and Rubella work differently - that those are in one vaccine has more to do with that the three vaccines don't interfere with each other, and that the immunity imparted by the mother wears off around that time and the child's immune system takes over, enabling a immune response.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Superbly informative, thank you.
I heard once that some scientist was collecting phages in the sewer outside a hospital in the hope that they might find help for people with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are such phages similar, different or the same as white blood cells?
-
Superbly informative, thank you.
I heard once that some scientist was collecting phages in the sewer outside a hospital in the hope that they might find help for people with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are such phages similar, different or the same as white blood cells?
Those are completely different things - bacteriophages are bacteria specific viruses that, like bacteria, occur pretty much everywhere. There are more bacteriophages than there are other lifeforms on this planet combined. Good thinking of that scientists tho - phages that can kill off MRSA would love hospital sewers.
-
This post did not contain any content.
She's probably an idiot and had to be told in that way
-
What you're reading as obtuse is me taking what you're saying at face-value.
I can’t tell you how someone can know something that’s impossible to know
So then why did you need to lead us around this loop? We already established your view: Any woman who believes that a man is being misogynistically condescending to her is a bigot herself. Wild opinion to hold publicly, but you do you.
What claim?
Me:
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
You:
To know them.
That claim.
they can say a person is condescending to them
How? Mind-reading?
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
Make it make sense. Or deflect by calling me obtuse. Up to you.
Not at all.
Simple and applies to most bigoted statements.
If all you have to go on is ____ and your perception and you make a conclusion based on that then you're in fact a bigot.
A woman can mansplain correct? If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you're in fact a bigot. I'm not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.
-
Not at all.
Simple and applies to most bigoted statements.
If all you have to go on is ____ and your perception and you make a conclusion based on that then you're in fact a bigot.
A woman can mansplain correct? If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you're in fact a bigot. I'm not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.
wrote last edited by [email protected]If all you have to go on is ____ and your perception and you make a conclusion based on that then you’re in fact a bigot.
This applies to literally every social interaction, including deciding that someone is being condescending.
So I repeat:
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
Make it make sense.
A woman can mansplain correct?
I'd probably say no, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you’re in fact a bigot.
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
I’m not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.
What questions have I not answered?
-
If all you have to go on is ____ and your perception and you make a conclusion based on that then you’re in fact a bigot.
This applies to literally every social interaction, including deciding that someone is being condescending.
So I repeat:
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
Make it make sense.
A woman can mansplain correct?
I'd probably say no, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
If so using a term specifically sexed and derogatorily used and created you’re in fact a bigot.
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
I’m not even sure what your argument is here at this point because you never actually answer the direct questions I ask.
What questions have I not answered?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Correct but assuming someone is a condescending ass is wholesale different then assuming they're x because you are y.
If I assume you're rude because you're black is it ok to drop the hard r or is that bigoted? It's solely based on my perception of both your attitude and your race, is that ok or is that bigoted.
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
I'll say this again my point is they can't, they're simply being a bigot it's like the main argument here and your confusion on that is quite honestly perplexing.
Probably not, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
Ok so either a woman can never talk down to a woman because she's a woman or the term is exclusively sexist. Remind me again, is sexism a form of bigotry?
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
We have a word for taking down to people it's condescending, you choose instead to use a word that explicitly refers to men and is intended to be derogatory, that's objectively bigoted. I wouldn't say you're acting hysterically because you're a woman that's emotionally unstable at the moment because that's sexist.
How is using a sexist term you've just admitted you think only applies to men not in fact sexist.
-
Correct but assuming someone is a condescending ass is wholesale different then assuming they're x because you are y.
If I assume you're rude because you're black is it ok to drop the hard r or is that bigoted? It's solely based on my perception of both your attitude and your race, is that ok or is that bigoted.
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
I'll say this again my point is they can't, they're simply being a bigot it's like the main argument here and your confusion on that is quite honestly perplexing.
Probably not, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
Ok so either a woman can never talk down to a woman because she's a woman or the term is exclusively sexist. Remind me again, is sexism a form of bigotry?
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
We have a word for taking down to people it's condescending, you choose instead to use a word that explicitly refers to men and is intended to be derogatory, that's objectively bigoted. I wouldn't say you're acting hysterically because you're a woman that's emotionally unstable at the moment because that's sexist.
How is using a sexist term you've just admitted you think only applies to men not in fact sexist.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Ah okay, so you wanted to clarify that the condescension part is irrelevant.
Your actual stance is: Any women who believes a man is being misogynistic towards them is actually being misandrous herself.
Still a wild stance to hold publicly, but thanks for clarifying.
-
Eh, it's a me problem of oversharing, and I can appreciate that my perspective isn't a universal perspective. How I'm perceived is as much my concern as my intention. I can't control what other people feel, but I can appreciate their perspective and respect their feelings without taking it personally.
If someone feels like I'm mansplaining, I want to know about it and try not to do that again. That's not an indictment of gender relations in modern society, that's just courtesy.
Quit being reasonable! Gender is cooked! Withdraw from society! It hates men!
-
Correct but assuming someone is a condescending ass is wholesale different then assuming they're x because you are y.
If I assume you're rude because you're black is it ok to drop the hard r or is that bigoted? It's solely based on my perception of both your attitude and your race, is that ok or is that bigoted.
How can they know the person is being condescending, but not be able to use the same faculties to know they are being misogynistic?
I'll say this again my point is they can't, they're simply being a bigot it's like the main argument here and your confusion on that is quite honestly perplexing.
Probably not, but I could see a semantic argument for it.
Ok so either a woman can never talk down to a woman because she's a woman or the term is exclusively sexist. Remind me again, is sexism a form of bigotry?
This is grammatically incoherent and I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
We have a word for taking down to people it's condescending, you choose instead to use a word that explicitly refers to men and is intended to be derogatory, that's objectively bigoted. I wouldn't say you're acting hysterically because you're a woman that's emotionally unstable at the moment because that's sexist.
How is using a sexist term you've just admitted you think only applies to men not in fact sexist.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It is not that it is happening, it is how it is being conducted. The body language, tone, specific wording, etc. You can generally tell when someone is talking down to you by these contextual behaviors. Have you never had someone speak to you, and you can tell from the way they are behaving, that they are being condescending to you? That person doesn't have to know anything about you to behave as though they feel superior to you. While this can be done to anybody, by anybody, men are more likely to behave in this manner to women, than other men, and women are less likely to do this to men. This is where mansplaining comes from, as the propensity for men to talk down to women more often than other men, and more than women do, thus the factor here is the person being spoken down to's gender.
This disparity of frequency is what defines a lot of how bigotry is executed. Both white men, and women, are targets of illegitimate arrest, investigation, violence, and other civil rights abuse from authority. However, non-white, and also non-female, demographics show a disparity, against their favor, in frequency of this mistreatment, even when all other factors are similar.
If you search academic study on mansplaining you will get a wealth of actual academic work, rather than an internet argument. I suggest doing that.
-
It is not that it is happening, it is how it is being conducted. The body language, tone, specific wording, etc. You can generally tell when someone is talking down to you by these contextual behaviors. Have you never had someone speak to you, and you can tell from the way they are behaving, that they are being condescending to you? That person doesn't have to know anything about you to behave as though they feel superior to you. While this can be done to anybody, by anybody, men are more likely to behave in this manner to women, than other men, and women are less likely to do this to men. This is where mansplaining comes from, as the propensity for men to talk down to women more often than other men, and more than women do, thus the factor here is the person being spoken down to's gender.
This disparity of frequency is what defines a lot of how bigotry is executed. Both white men, and women, are targets of illegitimate arrest, investigation, violence, and other civil rights abuse from authority. However, non-white, and also non-female, demographics show a disparity, against their favor, in frequency of this mistreatment, even when all other factors are similar.
If you search academic study on mansplaining you will get a wealth of actual academic work, rather than an internet argument. I suggest doing that.
Is that a fact though, those sound like perceptions.
Sure, that's not really relevant nor does it make every shitty cop also a racist though no one denies there's some overlap it would still be racist to assume all cops are racists.
Neat.
Ok so that question. Or really those questions, are you going to answer those.
Can I drop a hard r because I feel someone was rude to me and they happen to also be black and I feel like those two things are related.
How exactly is using an explicitly sexist term not in fact sexist.
-
Ah okay, so you wanted to clarify that the condescension part is irrelevant.
Your actual stance is: Any women who believes a man is being misogynistic towards them is actually being misandrous herself.
Still a wild stance to hold publicly, but thanks for clarifying.
No the sex or gender is the irrelevant part unless you have more and that aside using sexist terms is you guessed it, sexist.
